My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if Im not bothered by Donald Trumps lack of decorum. They ask if I dont think his tweets are beneath the dignity of the office. Heres my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. ...

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I dont find anything dignified, collegial or proper about Barack Obamas lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

... Yes, Obama was articulate and polished but in no way was he in the least bit dignified, collegial or proper.

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the 60s.

...through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is Americas first wartime president in the Culture War. ... Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, I cannot spare this man. He fights.

The Lefts runs over the rest of us like a freight train, and nary a peep. But everyone’s all aflutter when the Right begins standing up for itself.

This is the fight of faith and freedom against the forces of the satanic Left (cf. “Luciferianism”). The Delusional Lying Satanic Left knows no rules but tries, and so far succeeds, in telling the Right how they may or may not fight in this battle for the soul of America. We on the Right are taking the gloves off and hitting them with everything we have, which is enough to defeat them because, “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

I have been saying this to liberal colleagues from almost day one. The seminal moment I recall best was a few months ago when Trump took on the very nasty Mika and Joe, talking about her facelift.

A lib feminist I know was thoroughly angry. She wondered out loud how/why the President of the United States would respond in such a way. And I said, not unkindly, “He punches back. People are not used to that. Republicans for many years took media abuse as part of the atmosphere. He hits back, and that is why his enemies can’t stand him.”

This is not unlike when Fox News came on the scene. They weren’t necessarily “conservative”. They merely were BALANCED, and this caused them to APPEAR “biased”. The mainstream media for DECADES had been imbued with such leftist groupthink that a small network that decided to tell BOTH sides of a story was deemed radical.

Yes. And those we elected to fight for us who attack Trump precisely because he does fight are either idiots who can’t see what’s right in front of their faces, or fighting for the enemy. Either way, we need to force them to clear out of the way so somebody who WILL fight can be put in a place where they CAN fight.

Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, I cannot spare this man. He fights.

...

Grant was an alcoholic who recognized his problem and abstained long before the Civil War.

He left the Army because he was stationed in California and too far away to visit his family.

I really think this guy nailed it! Until he articulated it, I have vague images that hovered around everything he mentioned. It was refreshing to see him put all the pieces together. I would love to see this disseminated all over the media spectrum, but I fear, it will not see the light of day. Too Bad.

And while we are historically de-constructing the article, if we hadn’t had Patton we would not be dealing with Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich. Instead, we would have met the Russians on the Rhine in June instead of the Elbe in May.

But we are just being picky. The point of the article is very well taken. When you are in a fight, you need a fighter.

He did not drink during the period of the Civil War? I did not know that. I knew the reports of his drunkenness needs must have been exaggerated — otherwise he could never have been so bloodily effective.

They ask if I dont think his tweets are beneath the dignity of the office.

The answer is, of course, no -- we don't have etiquette laws, nor is the left going to follow such things, since they have no self-critical characteristics. Also, that same phrase, "beneath the dignity of the office" appeared word for word -- obviously a DNC talking point -- in the media quotes from Demwit officials as well by the Facebook lib phrase regurgitation set, which includes members of my own family. Thanks freedumb2003.

He did not drink during the period of the Civil War? I did not know that. I knew the reports of his drunkenness needs must have been exaggerated  otherwise he could never have been so bloodily effective.

...

Many officers were jealous of Grant's rise through their ranks based on his accomplishments so they tried to undermine him. There most likely was some truth to their accusations but it was all based on hearsay from Grant's previous service in California.

Eisenhower agreed with your reasoning:

General Dwight Eisenhower admitted in 1946 that he had long thought Grant was an alcoholic but after going through WWII he had changed his mind, knowing a drunkard could never have waged and won the Civil War. In 1945, Eisenhower wrote to the author of Grant of Appomattox, William Brooks, commenting on Grants report to the Secretary of War in 1865:

That report impressed me mightily ever since I read that report my respect for Grant has been high, in spite of the many bitter criticisms that I have read both of his military ability and his personal habits. With respect to this last item I am delighted that you have handled it so carefully and logically. It never seemed possible to me (and I have thought about it often during the months since December 1941) that a man who so constantly under the influence of liquor could have pursued a single course so steadfastly, could have accepted frequent failures of subordinates without losing his equilibrium, could have made numbers of close decisions which involved a nice balance between risk and advantage, and could have maintained the respect of such men as Sherman, Sheridan, Meade and, above all, President Lincoln.

In July, 1964, General Eisenhower had a long interview with Walter Cronkite on the beaches of Normandy on the 20th anniversary of D-Day. He said then:

I think Ulysses S. Grant is vastly underrated as a man and as a general. I know people think this and that about his drinking habits, which I think have been exaggerated way out of line. The fact is, he never demanded more men or material from the war department, he took over an army that had a long history of retreating and losing. That army had no confidence in their fighting ability and Grant came in as a real outsider. He had so many disadvantages going into the 1864 campaign, now 100 years ago. But he met every test and rose to the occasion unlike Ive ever seen in American history. He was a very tough yet very fair man and a great soldier. Hes not been given his due.

Eisenhower continued on to say:

Grant devised a strategy to end the war. He alone had the determination, foresight, and wisdom to do it. It was lucky that President Lincoln didnt interfere or attempt to control Grants strategic line of thinking. Lincoln wisely left the war to Grant, at least in the concluding moves after he came east. Grant is very undervalued today, which is a shame, because he was one of the greatest American generals, if not the greatest.

When Richard Nixon told Eisenhower in 1956 that it was common knowledge Stonewall Jackson was the greatest Civil War general, followed by Lee, Eisenhower interrupted him:

I wouldnt say that, Dick. In fact I think its not a very reasoned opinion. You forget that Grant captured three armies intact, moved and coordinated his forces in a way that baffles military logic yet succeeded and he concluded the war one year after being entrusted with that aim. Id say that was one hell of a piece of soldiering extending over a period of four years, the same time we were in the last war.

Dulles, who was present, remarked that Nixon said nothing in response!

General Eisenhower also stated that Grants memoirs were the best military memoirs ever written.

During the war Grant did smoke a lot of cigars and eventually died of throat cancer. I'd say that was his worst vice during the time.

"They ask if I dont think his tweets are beneath the dignity of the office.

Use of the term, "the dignity of the office," like much semantic maneuvering of cultish Progressives, is a phrase used to describe any occupant of the Oval Office whose boldness penetrates and/or threatens their group-think, totalitarian hold on the minds of cultish followers of Progressive ideology!

"Ideas have consequences."- Weaver

Presidential actions which threaten the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States of America, such as those of the most recent past Administration, truly were, and are, the very definition of being "beneath the dignity of the office."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.